Central York policy committee updates acceptable-use draft to add AI language, accessibility and two-year review

The Central York School District Policy Committee reviewed a revised draft of Policy 8.15, the district's acceptable-use policy for computers, email, network resources and Internet access, and agreed to prepare and circulate a final draft for a first reading on the upcoming Monday evening meeting.

Committee members concentrated on several substantive updates to the 2011 policy (last revised in 2014). Major changes discussed included adding explicit language to address artificial intelligence in the definitions for prohibited material, clarifying the district's position on students'copyright for works created on district equipment, expanding accessibility requirements for district websites, strengthening security and anti-hacking language, and establishing a regular two-year review of the policy.

Why it matters: The committee said the 2014 revision is out of date given recent advances in AI, web accessibility tools and evolving security threats. The draft aims to align the district's AUP with current state and federal definitions of harmful material, incorporate the district's separate AI policy (Policy 8.15.1) by citation, and set clearer expectations for staff and students who use district-owned devices or network resources.

Definitions and AI: Members discussed adding language that would incorporate statutory and regulatory language covering artificially generated imagery and materials created substantially through technical means (for example, artificial intelligence or photo-editing software) into the policy's definition of material harmful to minors. They also agreed to cite the district's AI policy (Policy 8.15.1) where appropriate rather than repeat all AI rules throughout the AUP draft.

Prohibitions and technology-protection measures: The draft replaces some older phrasing (such as 'disabling' filters) with language permitting expedited review and adjustment of technology protection measures upon request by students or staff rather than permanent disabling. The committee also agreed to revise the list of categories of material minors may not access so the policy references state and federal definitions of 'harmful to minors' rather than relying on undefined terms alone.

Security and unauthorized access: The draft adds explicit prohibitions on attempts to gain unauthorized access, distribution of malware, use of vulnerability scanners, password cracking, packet sniffers, spoofing attacks, root kits, social-engineering attacks and similar activities. Committee members flagged the list as intentionally broad to accommodate new threats and noted the committee's plan to revisit the policy regularly.

Copyright and student works: The committee discussed adding a paragraph that clarifies students retain copyright in original artistic or academic works they create, including works created using district computers or electronic resources. The district may seek a license to display student works for educational or promotional purposes (for example, posting artwork on a district website or showcasing student writing), with language to be finalized and circulated to the committee prior to the first reading.

Accessibility and website content: A new accessibility section requires district staff who maintain websites and pages to post content accessible to individuals with disabilities to the same extent it is available to other users. Examples in the draft include alternate text for images, captions for video, avoidance of text-as-image, screen-reader-friendly links and attachments, and keyboard or speech navigation support. The committee noted district work already underway to implement many of these items.

Delegation, curriculum and administrative regulations: The committee debated phrasing about administrative regulations (ARs) and curriculum. Members agreed the policy should require the district to develop curriculum addressing appropriate use and digital safety and allow (but not require) ARs if circumstances warrant. The agreed phrasing was to make curriculum development mandatory and ARs discretionary.

Consequences and definitions: The draft tightens consequence language: vandalism will result in loss of access privileges, disciplinary action and/or referral to legal authorities. Committee members also agreed to move a specific vandalism definition earlier in the policy text so it appears in the definitions section.

Process and next steps: The committee asked PSBA and the district's policy reviewers (identified in the draft as Saxton and Stump / Saxon & Stump in the working draft) to clean and correct citation links and formatting. One staff member said they will send the proposed copyright paragraph to the committee chair and policy reviewers for inclusion. The committee agreed the board would review the policy at minimum every two years or sooner if needed. The draft will be prepared and circulated for the board's first reading at the Monday evening meeting.

Ending: No formal vote was recorded at the meeting; the committee's next step is to receive the cleaned draft and consider it at the scheduled first reading. The meeting adjourned after confirming the draft timeline and next steps.